Humanites - IJHSS - Higher Education in UK Kalim Siddiqui

International Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences (IJHSS)

ISSN(P): 2319-393X; ISSN(E): 2319-3948
Vol. 3, Issue 2, Mar 2014, 9-32
© IASET
HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE ERA OF GLOBALISATION
KALIM SIDDIQUI
Teaches International Economics, University of Huddersfield, UK
ABSTRACT
The article will analyse the impact of globalisation on higher education. Some have argued that globalisation will
provide equal opportunities. While others claim that globalisation would mean the McDonaldisation of the university and
also worldwide inequality. The current pressure on higher education mainly due to neoliberal globalisation has increased
the role for private sector in higher education. The paper examines the realities of globalisation in higher education to
highlight some of the ways in which globalisation affects the higher education in developing countries, particularly India
and China.
It is argued here that the business needs are changing both at national and international levels. And there is
increased demand from corporate sector to change the courses to meet their interests. Higher education is facing cuts in
funds and declining investments thanks to the neoliberal policies. The recent attempt to include higher education within the
framework of WTO through the General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS) seeks to establish “open markets” for
knowledge products of all kinds. Finally, the current neo-liberal globalisation supported by IMF, World Bank and WTO is
very different than previous experiences as it provides increased role of transnational corporations (TNCs) and foreign
academic institutions in the developing countries.
KEYWORDS: Neo-Liberalism, Globalisation, Higher Education, FDI, GATS, China and India
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to provide some insights into the various ways in which Higher Education is being
influenced by the pressures of globalisation. The study focuses on globalisation, which is based on neo-liberal polices and
discusses its effects on Higher Education. Globalisation of higher education has been reinforced by ‘market forces’ i.e.
demand and supply. The business needs are changing both at national and international levels and there is increased
demand from corporate sector to change the curriculum and courses to meet their interests. At the same time, the supply of
higher education is dominated by mostly public universities, which are facing cuts in funding and declining investments.
We will examine the recent increased role of ‘profit-seeking’ approach towards higher education in the name of
globalisation (Lambert and Butler, 2006). It is also argued here that the knowledge and information revolution associated
with globalisation has created positive climate that could provide both challenges and opportunities. Higher education is
considered to be crucial to increase productivity and economic growth and promote development as last quarter century of
rapid growth in the East Asian countries have shown. Higher education is the main tool by which to promote economic
development and improve living conditions. In these economies the government has played a vital role for the promotion
and development of human capital (Siddiqui, 2009). However, the proponents of the ‘free market’ argue that globalisation
and market forces, not the state, provide a new opportunity for higher education in the developing countries. In India for
example, globalisation is influencing the quality of education. In recent years there has been a proliferation of substandard
www.iaset.us editor@iaset.us
10 Kalim Siddiqui
overseas institutions which charge high fees, but provide poor education. Moreover, in India there is no law for consumer
protection or regulation in higher education markets. We find the issue of relevance to the society the content and the scope
is determined by the requirements of the Western business interests, not in the interests of the developing societies.
This article examines the problem associated with the application of market logic to higher education, which is
supposed to play an important role in China and India. For instance, in the context the market forces seen by India as vital
to achieve government stated objectives in higher education such as expansion and excellence. In this study we will argue
that the market logic seriously compromises value and quality of higher education. Academics in India have argued that
there is need for economic reforms in higher education with greater infusion of market principles and greater role of
private sector to maintain the high GDP growth rates (Gupta et al, 2008).
Recent globalisation has been dominated by neoliberalism. The Neoliberalism started more than three decades ago
in US and UK and later on taken up by the IMF and the World Bank (Morey, 2004). It is based on process of change in the
political economy of capitalism - privatisation, deregulation and financialisation. Under neo-liberalism, the economic
culture increasingly centred on individual performance, not for collective purposes. It is important to understand how the
market for higher education is evolving and what it implies for education in broader sense of the term. The neoliberalism
bound to make education subservient to the market forces. Across the world, private higher education has grown rapidly in
the last few decades. At present, about 30 % of the global higher education enrolment is private. In Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan, Indonesia and Philippines more than two-thirds students are educated privately (Altbach, 2009). Also private
universities are expanding rapidly in Asia and Africa. The reasons for recent rise of private sector are not difficult to
understand. The most important factor is government’s inability to meet the growing demands. Private institutions have
entered the market to offer courses large part in vocational areas. At the same time public institutions have witnessed
budget cuts.
The changing government policy and increased reliance on market forces have implications for access to higher
education, as well as quality and excellence. The Indian government aims to attain gross enrolment rate in higher education
to 15% by 2012, from about 11% in 2009. The central government has already taken initiative to set up of 30 central
universities and colleges with special focus on deprived regions and communities.
The arguments for infusing private sector role in higher education remain subject to close scrutiny. As Bridges
and Jonathan (2003) find, “The trouble is, however, that market conditions contain several dynamics which create first
differences of quality (and not just of character) and then unequal access to the best. First, it is evident that in a market
environment success breeds success and failure just as surely breeds failure. Early achievement encourages custom, which
brings additional resources and commitment, which enables further success and so on: early failure opens the way to a
precipitous drop down a less virtuous circle” (Bridges and Jonathan. 2003: 135)
The market as an institutional arrangement may be neutral and provide equal opportunities to all in theory, but in
reality it accentuates inequality as all participants do not equally command the resources to participate in the market.
Those who are left out of the market due to factors such as economic, social and educational factors, becomes worst off.
As Hogan (1999) argues, “....markets are structures of power organised around a system of social (specifically, class)
relations that ‘structure’ social action in determinate ways in which the possession of certain attributes or ‘market
capacities’ advantages some individuals and groups relative to others” (Hogan, 1999: 330). The proponents of
neoliberalism ignore the inherent power inequalities due to the unequal distribution of assets and purchasing power.
Higher Education in the Era of Globalisation 11
In a country like India with widening disparities of higher education is viewed as an instrument for fostering social
mobility (Siddiqui, 2011). We find the market difficult to achieve success because of information asymmetry and the huge
externalities it generates. Since market is unable to ensure the equal distribution of resources, therefore the role of
government has to be proactive in provision of social goods like education.
In terms of enrolment in higher education worldwide, the USA is the largest (i.e. 17 million), second is China
nearly (21 million) and India is the third largest enrolment of the overseas students in 2008 (12million).
The growth of enrolment is higher education in India has been phenomenal sine independence, from less than
1 million in 1947 to 12 million in 2005 (Altbach, 2009). India has got currently 252 state universities, 18 000 colleges and
large number of vocational training institutions (Baty, 2009; Government of India, 2008).
A recent Global Research Report from Thomson Reuters argues that India is set to overtake in terms of research
output by 2020. They think world’s leading economies might be able to alter the current scenarios as rapid growth creates a
“new geography” of global research. The report, India: Research and Collaboration in New Geography of Science,
suggests that India lags behind the developed countries but the government wants to change this. In its Five-year plan for
2007-2012 aims to four fold rise in spending in education compared to previous plan. The current government spending on
scientific research accounted for only 0.9 % of GDP. However, by 2012 it is expected to rise to 1.2 % of India’s GDP.
Moreover, about 2.4 % of the population hold graduate degrees (20.5 million) in 1991, which rose to 4.5 % (48.7 million)
in 2005 (Baty, 2009:20-21).
The different countries are affected differently. For instance, European countries may adjust to new degree
structures to harmonise on the basis of Bologna initiatives (Jacobs and Ploeg, 2006). The process of globalisation is also
affecting higher education in developing countries 1. In the 21st Century the knowledge economy is suppose to play a
central role and due to this higher education has assumed unprecedented importance both for the developing and developed
countries2. The current initiative led by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) debate concerning the General Agreements
on Trade in Services (GATS) – this seems to be an attempt by the TNCs and governments in the developed countries to
integrate higher education into the legal structures of the WTO3.
We find not much work is done on the question of globalisation and education, particularly among economist.
The aim of this paper is to reflect and explore the interconnections between globalisation and education in the developing
countries. The effects of globalisation on higher education appear to be considerable in developing countries. It is here that
market-friendly policies are promoted with active intervention by international financial and national governmental
through policies like privatisation, cost-sharing and part-time employment (Bok, 2003). In many developing countries job
security and academic freedom is being threatened. The study also focuses on the most recent higher education trends,
where academic programmes or institutions from the developed countries are being offered in the developing countries.
Often these programmes are launched in collaboration with local institutions in developing countries
(Hayes and Wynyard, 2002).
1) Developed countries are defined as highly industrialized nations as United States, Japan, UK, Germany, Canada, France, Italy.
’
2) Developed countries are defined as highly industrialized nations as United States, Japan, UK, Germany, Canada, France , Italy.
’
3) See World Trade Organisation (WTO) available at www.wto.org
12 Kalim Siddiqui
Higher education institutions are being transformed with globalisation through out the world, which is
‘the widening, deepening and speeding up of world wide interconnectedness’ (Held et al, 1999: 2). However, higher
education was always more internationalised because of its immersion in knowledge, which was less concerned with
national boundaries. With the growing impact of globalisation, governments and universities are preoccupied increasingly
by strategies of increased cross-border co-operation4 and issues such as bench-marking, ranking and global comparisons
(Held et al 1999; Liu and Liu, 2005; Liu and Cheng, 2005). In recent years providers of higher education are also emerging
in the developing economies like China, Malaysia Singapore and India, which are becoming key players in global markets
(Siddiqui, 2012; Marginson and Wende, 2007).
The structure of this article is as follows: First, the introduction presents a brief introduction to the subject area.
The second section outlines the essential characteristics of globalisation. The third section develops an analytical
framework to consider how globalisation influences higher education. The fourth section analyses the role of WTO and
GATS in the service sector. The fifth section discusses the increased role of IT and English language in the period of
globalisation; and finally, draws out countries’ experience, particularly implications of free-market policies for higher
education in India and China. Education is part of services as different from goods.
Economists argue that education poses unique characteristics as its production and consumption cannot be stored
and both producers and consumers must interact because it requires physical proximity of both actors. We have witnessed
in recent years more and more students from the developing countries move to study in academic institutions based in the
West (Marginson, 1999; Marginson and Wende, 2007). In recent years dramatic changes in telecommunications and
information technologies has created unprecedented situations in services sectors. For a long time, higher education was
tradable in one category where student moved to the service provider i.e. to premier universities in the developed countries.
Halsey et al (1997) argue that “education remains one of the few areas of social policy over which national
governments are able to assert decisive influence. The educational policy controlled by government is an important test of
statecraft where governments can demonstrate their power to improve the conditions of everyday life” (Halsey, et al,
1997:159). According to Halsey et al governments fear the loss of national sovereignty and ‘forms of backlash chauvinism’
reaction towards national and cultural identity. In the case English speaking countries the reaction was seen as cultural
restorations through curriculum prescriptions, as some try to maintain national sovereignty in the face of what is being seen
as legitimation crisis for national government (Habermas, 1976).
The ways and means by which higher education is provided is changing. The consumers i.e. students and parents
have an increasingly preference for those courses which will not only make them employable, but higher salaries. Thus, the
popularity of courses is associated with the market demand. The universities design their courses after liaison with the
employers’ organisations. In recent years there has been increasing relationship between higher academic institutions and
employers. Moreover, the market exercises a greater influence on the research agenda especially in business, medicines or
engineering. Goodson (1990) identifies that the economic imperatives that are so evident in the technical-rational structures
of the curricula worldwide. It may be seen as threats to national sovereignty and may undermine any attempts to the
national building the educational institutions and national curricula. The move towards centralised curriculum and
4) In recent discussions, for example OECD, World Bank have emphasised the need to include education in services. Trade in education services is also termed as cross-border education,
which refers to the movements of people programmes, providers, knowledge, study projects and services cross national boundaries
.
assessment is part of ‘push and pull’ globalization policy (Giddens, 1990). Some see an attempt to undermine local and
national skills and knowledge by the big corporations in order to make their product more competitive in global markets
(Bloom, 2005). The globalisation has increased the marketisation of education and withdrawal of the government from the
control and responsibility for administration (Apple, 1995).
The Meaning of Globalisation
The term ‘globalisation’ is described as a process of integration into the world economy. It is based on a strategy
of development through a rapid integration with the world economy. These policies of globalisation rely largely on trade,
foreign direct investment and international finance. In brief, it can be summarised as a process linked with greater
economic openness, increased role of market forces and economic integration with the global economy. Wiseman (1995)
has provided a useful definition of globalisation: This is a “contested trend towards more independent, local, national and
transnational economies and societies, the expansion of international trade, investment, production and financial flows,
the growing significance of regional trading blocs and trade agreements, more influential roles for international financial
institutions and transnational corporations, far greater mobility of capital – particularly financial capital – and the overall
spread of highly commodified and individualised economic, social and cultural relations into ever more spheres of human
activity” (Wiseman, 1995:5).
A major change has been taking place in higher education, is the globalisation of economic, cultural and academic
institutions along with the increasing interdependence of nations. In the US since the 1980s for-profit colleges received
large amount of federal subsidies through student financial aid, which allowed them to shift from being purely
market-driven to one being partially federally subsidised. At present is US they are known as career colleges and are major
providers of the skill training beyond the secondary school level (Morey, 2004).
As markets became more global, economic development is linked to country’s abilities to acquire and utilise
scientific, technical and economic knowledge, and medium to high levels of technology content now characterises over
half of international trade. For-profit institutions focus on students as customers and provide services for them that is
relevant to the market need (Morey, 2004).
To some extent, globalisation has opened the access to available information for scholar to study (Rodrik 1997).
While some argue that it also has reinforced existing inequalities and created new barriers. Stiglitz (2002) has argued that
in some respect globalisation works against the interest of developing countries and at the same time re-enforcing global
inequalities. He is not opposed to globalisation and sees it as inevitable (Stiglitz 2002; Siddiqui, 1998). The state may have
retreated from the direct role in production, but still serve to regulate competing capitals, especially in realm of conflicts
between states. Collinicos (1994) notes: “although the pronounced tendency towards global integration of capital over the
past generation has severely reduced the ability of states to control economic activities within their borders, private capital
continue to rely on the nation state to which they are most closely attached to protect them against the competition of other
capitals, the effects of economic crisis, and the resistance of those they exploit” (Collinicos 1994: 54).
Since mid-1980s the economic power and activities of TNCs have accelerated in terms of investment and
economic integration (Beck, 2000; Girdner and Siddiqui, 2008). The current globalisation is the result of two key factors
namely – technological and political. Firstly, the rapid growths of electronic communications have made it possible for top
managers to oversee the businesses operating in many countries at the same time. Technology has made all these tasks
14 Kalim Siddiqui
possible at very low operating costs. Secondly, the governments have dismantled national control and regulation on capital
movements, and profit remunerations. This was a political decision to do away with the legal and administrative
legislations that might have protected local economies (Hoogvelt, 2001).
The proponents of ‘neo-liberalism’ argue that people are best served by market freedom and little intervention by
the state. The role of government should be confined to creating and defending markets. All other functions are better
discharged by private enterprise, which will be prompted by the profit motive to supply good and services. Neo-liberalism
is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years and it has been backed by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (Harvey 2005). Neo-liberalism entails expenditure deflating
policy package at the macroeconomic levels. For example, India’s external debt crisis of 1991 brought the country close to
default in meeting its international payment obligation. Under such circumstances India adopted neo-liberal also known as
‘market-friendly’ economic policies (Siddiqui 2008). However, the neo-liberal market reforms were not new. The World
Bank and IMF had already applied such measures in Latin America and Sub-Saharan African countries in response to the
debt crisis in the 1980s.
Globalisation and Higher Education
The growing emphasis within education on economic and commercial side, Giddens (1990) has defined
globalisation as: “the intensification of world-wide social relations that link distant localities in a way that local happenings
are shaped by events occurring many times away, and vice versa. This is a dialectical process because such local
happenings may move in an obverse direction from the very distanciated relations that shape them” (Giddens, 1990: 64).
Globalisation entails the formation of global markets and unprecedented levels of foreign direct investment and cross
border mobility in production and closer integration of financial sectors (Ischinger, 2006). It heavily relies on
communication systems, tending towards a ‘single global village’ 5. It was said that extending networks, broad bands and
other information and communication technologies (ICTs) are suppose to create new form of people’s associations. Along
with new technologies and urbanisation and industrialisation in the developing countries would leads towards much higher
forms of integration6.
Table 1: Total and Gross Enrolment (2009)
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Trading Economics.com
5) Guy Neave’s explanation of globalisation as “quickening exchange” includes both its economic and cultural aspects Guy Neave, 2002, p.332.
.
6) The increased levels of personal contact with the help of new technologies are unknown in the past human history. For example, dramatic in the first quarter of 2002, about 24 billion text
messages were sent globally; more than 70 % of households in South Korea already have broadband Internet connections; by the June 2006 100 million people in India subscribe to mobile
phone service (S. Marginson and Marijk va der Wende, 2007, p.7)
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statisticus, Braill School

Enrolment Ratio, Trading Economics.com
Figure 1: Enrolment in Higher Education, Brics and US (2006-10)
Table 2: Expenditurein Education and Rasearch and Development (R&D)
Percentage of Expenditure in Education as % of GDP

Source: The Economist’s Pocket World in Figures; Data from IMF, 2012;
OECD Fact Book, 2011
The BRIC member countries (i.e. Brazil, Russia, India and China) are experiencing high rates of growth in
demand for higher education. But they lack the resources to meet the growing demands. In the past these countries have
adopted a stratified system of higher education, where few high quality elite institutions coexist along with large number of
low quality institutions.
The private sector has contributed largely to the expansion in higher education in recent years, as the public sector
investment has either dwindled or grown at much lower rate in relation to growing domestic demands. “Since elite
institutions in India, China and Brazil are very few, their output is very small, compared to the total graduate output or
output of the mass institutions, which is of poor quality. Enrolments in elite institutions, according to crude estimates, vary
between 10 % and 15 % of the total in the four countries. The underlying assumption seems to be that a few high-quality
graduates are crucial and sufficient for rapid economic growth (Tilak, 2013: 43). The question also arises can such
stratified system of higher education will be able to help economic transformation towards inclusive and faster growth?
The BRIC countries’ economies have witnessed rapid growth rates, while the developed economies are yet to
recover from the 2008 economic crisis. At present, together they account for one-fifth of the world GDP, compared to only
8 % ten years ago. Since 1990s the higher growth rates has also led to the realisation that higher education is crucial to
sustain higher growth rates. In Russia and China the growth of private sector in education is under government strict
16 Kalim Siddiqui
supervision, while Brazil and India had less government scrutiny and rely on market forces. As a consequence, poor
regulatory mechanism has led to falling standards.
Higher education is becoming important for emerging market economies (BRICs) because of the rapid economic
growth they are witnessing. For example, these economies accounted for 8 % of the global gross domestic product, which
further increased and in 2012, the BRIC economies accounted for nearly 20 % of the global GDP. Among these focus
economies I will focus on namely Brazil, China on India here. They also have experienced rapid expansion of access and
enrolments in higher education.
China with fastest economic growth rates also has invested heavily in higher education. China and India sends the
largest number of students for study to the developed countries largely to USA, UK and Australia. At present, both
countries accounts for nearly half of the total overseas students and their numbers are likely to increase. China has
envisaged several programmes to lure top academics to China once they have completed higher qualifications in the West
with higher salaries and better working conditions. While India has not charted out any specific programmes to invite
overseas Indian academic, except to some extent in IT sector.
India with remarkable growth rates for the last two decades has increased spending on higher education.
At present, the country has the largest and most influential higher education institutions in south Asia, with growing impact
on middle-east and other Sub-Saharan African countries. Similarly, Brazil’s higher education, especially in the areas of
science and technology and research has established a leadership role in Latin America. Brazilian academics also publish
their research output in top academic journals. We must not forget that Brazil had no universities until 1920, started much
later than Europe and North America. However, the data shows its total enrolment is quite impressive.
The enrolment in higher education of BRIC countries is very modest by international standards. These four
countries together constitute more than two-third of the total world’s enrolments in higher education. Moreover, China and
India have now among the world’s largest academic systems of higher education and consistently improving in terms of
access and quality, despite increasing challenges. Due to lack of funding the public higher education deteriorates.
The emerging middle class and the elites are willing to pay to private institutions.
It is beyond doubt that inadequate public support for higher education has provided opportunities for a rise of
private sector in higher education in developing countries. Much of this increase in BRIC economies are in management,
IT and vocational courses. The number of private universities is growing in India in recent years. Private sector caters to
students who cannot find admissions in public universities. Private sector is there to earn profit and therefore, quality
assurance has become challenge.
However, critics of neo-liberal globalisation have termed it as “McDonaldization” or “Neo-Fordism”

(Hayes and Wynyard, 2002). Despite differences in the meaning of these terms, both emphasise on economic efficiency
and tendency towards homogenising practices. Orr (1997) points out that globalisation pursued by neo-liberal economic
polices in South Africa led to drastic cutting down of the states’ role in the economy, de-regulation, liberalisation and
privatisation and finally reducing the state expenditure in the mid-1990s. This has increased the mobility of capital and
increased the role of market in resource mobilisation of the country’s resources. The competitive environment of
marketisation has required the creation of new relations with students and users, which have led to the reduction of
students’ subsidies and grants.
Table 3: Selected Indicators of Global Potential, Capacity and Engagement, Various Countries. 2003-2005
Ratio of
Gross Foreign Tertiary
Gross % of GDP Spent Research Broadban
National Tertiary Students
National on Tertiary Degree d Internet
Country Income Students as Abroad
Product Education, Graduates to per 100
GNI per % of as % of
(GNP, PPP) Institutions from Total Persons
Head PPP Students Students
Population
2005 US$ Public Private
2005 US$ 2003 % 2005 2003 % 2003 %
(billion) 2003 % 2003 %
Australia 643.1 30610 0.8 0.8 1.5 13.8 18.7 0.6
Canada 1061.2 32220 n.a. n.a. n.a. 21.9 n.a. n.a.
Denmark 182.7 33570 1.9 n.a. 1.1 25.0 9.0 3.3
United States 12409.5 41950 1.2 1.4 1.2 16.8 3.5 0.2
Japan 3943.8 31410 0.3 0.6 0.8 17.6 2.2 1.6
Germany 2417.5 29210 1.0 0.1 2.0 13.0 10.7 2.8
UK 1926.8 32690 0.8 0.3 1.8 15.9 11.3 1.2
France 1829.6 30540 1.0 0.1 1.2 15.2 10.5 2.5
Italy 1667.8 28840 0.8 0.2 0.5 11.9 1.9 2.2
New Zealand 92.5 23030 0.9 0.6 0.9 8.1 13.5 3.5
Norway 185.7 40420 1.4 0.1 1.0 21.9 5.2 7.1
Portugal 212.4 19730 0.9 0.1 2.4 11.5 3.9 3.0
Spain 1133.5 25820 1.0 0.3 1.1 11.7 2.9 1.5
Sweden 280.3 31420 1.6 0.2 2.8 20.3 7.8 3.6
Korea 1056.1 21850 0.3 1.9 0.9 25.4 0.2 2.8
Mexico 1052.4 10030 1.0 0.4 0.1 2.2 n.a. 0.9
OECD Total - - 1.0 0.8 n.a. 13.6 n.a. n.a.
China 8572.7 6600 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.8
India 3815.6 3460 0.7 0.2 n.a. n.a. 0.1 0.9
Brazil 1627.3 8230 0.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5
Egypt 329.8 4440 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.3
Malaysia 274.8 10320 2.7 0.9 n.a. n.a. 4.4 6.5
Source: OECD (2005a), pp. 37, 55, 70, 174, 240, 267; Marginson and Wende, 2007, pp. 19 n.a. = data not available
Table 3 provides various key indicators of few selected countries. Here column 2 and 3 shows the differences in
economic resources between the developed and developing countries. Gross National Income per head, a rough measure of
wealth intensity within each nation varies from US$ 41,950 in the United States to a low 10,030 in Mexico. There is much
variation in investment in tertiary educational capacity, from 2.6 % of GDP in the United States to 1.0 % in Portugal.
These data show that private sources of funding play a large role in some countries, for example, in the United States
(1.4 % of the GDP), in Korea (1.9 % of GDP), Australia (0.8%), in New Zealand (0.6) and in Japan (0.6). In Table 3
column 6 provides data on broadband subscription per 100 persons, in all categories of broadband access. This also shows
the global connectivity, the capacity of global engagement, as broadband is essential to full utilisation of internet.
Among the OECD group it varies from a high of 25.4 in Korea to 2.2 in Mexico.
18 Kalim Siddiqui
Source: also see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12671198? Accessed on 22/03/2011

Figure 2: International Student Numbers, 1975-2009
In most universities the focus on global dimension is increasing, it appears to be difficult for individual nations to
ignore the global challenges (Bargh et al 1996). But established universities and vocational institutions increasingly
involved as global business education. However, globalisation is not taking place on a level playing field. For instance,
American higher education institutions exercise a profound global influence. Higher education has increasingly taken as
global marketisation. It aimed to train managers and executives for global corporations to understand global cultural
management and strategies to mange global businesses (OECD, 2005a). Teichler argues (2004) that ‘It is surprising to note
how much the debate on global phenomena in higher education suddenly focuses on marketisation, competition and
management in higher education. Other terms, such as knowledge society, global village, global understanding or global
learning, are hardly taken into account’ (Teichler, 2004: 23). The availability of worldwide electronic data base,
video-conferencing and use of IT in teaching has not only displaced existing teaching and learning methods but also opens
potential for new opportunities in pedagogy and learning (OECD, 2005b).
Educational reforms in developing countries such as India, China, Singapore and Malaysia are supposed to
enhance global competitiveness. The increased management control has witnessed tensions between faculty members and
universities’ senior management team on the issues of responsiveness to global change. The fact that economic
competition is seen as knowledge driven, has introduced some changes in terms of national policy in the education sector.
However, in most developing countries governments remain the principal suppliers of funds, though the role of private
sector is growing but still their contribution overall funding of higher education is minimal.
Internationalisation of higher education means increasing aspects of inter-university co-operation. It is considered

a powerful tool for stimulating both intercultural dialogue and diversity in outlook and understanding towards topical
issues. Such diversity and global knowledge source suppose to raise research and stimulate research overall environment.
It is said that increasing international cooperation within higher academic institutions would enhance social issues which
are often ignored by corporate driven globalisation. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) argue that “despite the very real difference
in their political cultures, the four countries developed similar policies as those points where higher education intersected
with globalisation of the post industrial political economy. Tertiary education policies in all countries moved towards
science and technology polices that emphasised academic capitalism at the expense of basic or fundamental research,
towards curricula policy that concentrated monies in science and technology and fields close to market … towards
increased access at lower government cost per student, and towards organisational policies and undercut the autonomy of
academic institutions (Slaughter and Leslie 1997:55).
There seems to over-riding ideology of free-market and an attempt to restructure educational systems along
entrepreneurial lines. According to neo-liberal principles, the state should facilitate the market and public spending should
be kept to minimum. With neo-liberalism the role of profit and market-driven policies have taken important role and TNCs
and few leading western universities can be seen as the colonists, who are trying to dominate higher education largely for
commercial reasons. The national governments are not totally neutral spectators but they assist them and also have an
interest to encourage and maintain dominance over the academic institutions in the developing countries.
The control of higher education in the countries of Africa and Asia by the developed countries has historical roots.
During the colonial rule, universities from Europe were set up branches and institutions in the colonies. French in North
and West Africa, British in South Asia, East and West Africa, while Americans in Philippines, Lebanon, Egypt and
Netherlands in Indonesia. During the 1960s and 1970s at the height of Cold War, the United States institutions established
campuses. Also some US prestigious universities have established campus in Spain. For example, university of Chicago’s
business school has opened campus in Spain, which uses Chicago’s curriculum, teaching staffs to teach Spanish students.
We also find foreign degree courses are ‘”franchised” by local universities (Apple, 1995; Bloom, 2005).
Neo-liberalism has seen the increasing omission of syllable of education with economic policy and the enfolding
of educational governance into new forms of management. It seems that there is a concomitance here between the logic of
globalisation – as world of free trade system and new thinking about social policy. The other argument that
professionalization of the subjects is often said to be desirable process. However, most of the subject is dominated by the
rich countries and therefore copying in the subject area would necessarily mean sacrificing any independent thinking and
promoting borrowed concepts. This would further mean expanding the colonial hegemony of the west over poor countries
(Freire, 1993).
Unlike in the 20th century, higher education is increasingly no longer a national affair. The students are
increasingly mobile and drawn from across national boundaries 7. Therefore, the course offered international relevant and
also meet the demand of the private sectors in a rapidly changing and very competitive environment both nationally and
internationally. The United States is interested to open Indian market for US investors in higher education sectors and it
wants the large Indian markets to be open for its corporations.
A joint forum of representatives of United States and Indian officials to set up to develop a ‘strategic partnership’
between the two countries had made several recommendations for government to bring private investment in education
sector. However, one among recommendation is to allow FDI in higher education in order to strength ‘strategic
partnership’. Indian government is arguing that the target of higher education cannot be achieved without the involvement
of foreign capital (Bushan, 2006; Chanda, 2002).
7) In recent literature (for instance OECD, 2005a) trade in education services is also termed as cross-border education, which refers to the movement of people, knowledge, ideas and
services across national boundaries. The term is often used as “transnational education”.
20 Kalim Siddiqui
General Agreement on Trade in Services: Targeting the Services Sector
The challenge posed by globalisation, various countries has reacted differently in term of pace and speed.
The policies of openness and liberalisation in higher education have been discussed in WTO negotiations in the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 8. The WTO negotiations suppose to open national education system to foreign
competitors. Some developing countries are concerned with threat of the loss of government control. The failure of
negotiations to bring the Doha round of trade liberalisation to completion suggests that in the foreseeable future, the
liberalisation of trade in higher education will occur more on bi-lateral or regional basis than through global multilateral
negotiations (Altbach, 2004).
Higher education in the world is highly unequal in terms of distribution and available resources (Apple, 1995).
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is aiming to de-regulate international markets in services, including education
through General agreement on Trade and Service (GATS). The rich countries are behind these GATS policies and their
interest clearly coincides with the interests of big corporations based in these countries. The developing countries who
would like to join WTO should treat as Article XVII, subsection 1 of GATS says: “each member shall accord to services
and services suppliers of any other Member, in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services, treatment no less
favourable than that it accords to its own like services and services suppliers”. This would also include foreign universities
setting up courses through branches of franchisees or entire institutions in another member country. This would result in
developed countries exporting services to developing countries.
It seems that the powerful universities based in the developed countries have largely dominated in terms of
creating and providing of knowledge, while higher academic institutions in poor countries with fewer available resources
have had difficulty maintaining quality and higher academic standards. Academic institutions in the developed countries
were able to provide leadership in terms of research, teaching and knowledge dissemination. And these institutions due to
the more available resources (such as more research funding, infrastructures, books, libraries, laboratories, and tutors with
appropriate qualifications) of course produced better results. The major international academic centres, I mean leading
research-oriented are overwhelmingly based in USA, UK, Germany, France and Japan. However, more recently a number
of universities in South Korea, Singapore, and China are being recognised as world class research institutions
(Beck, 2000).
The debate regarding the inclusion of higher education is crucial to discuss here in particular knowledge
industries within the framework of WTO through GATS proposals. GATS seek to establish “open markets” for knowledge
products of all kinds – including higher education. GATS support the idea that knowledge is a commodity like any other
and should be freely traded around the world. WTO under the GATS is seeking to provide a legally binding framework for
circulation of educational services and for protection of intellectual property rights. WTO is trying to ensure open markets
and protection for the owners of knowledge of products. In recent years copy right laws have been further strengthened to
protect the owners of the knowledge (Correa, 2000; WTO, 2003).
8) Trade in services between developing countries is difficult to estimate, due to available data on this is scant. The discrepancy is data suggests that services are not only difficult to trade
but that, more importantly methodologies and statistics adopted are unlikely captured fully. In fact, many statistics are taken from balance of payments (BoP) data, which is less than correct
estimation as measured by GATS.
The question arises should education is to be considered as a commodity to be traded in the market place and
regulated as manufacturing products? As Lawrence Summers, the former US Treasury Secretary has expressed: “I am
sceptical as to whether bringing educational issues under the auspices of trade negotiations would be helpful… To start
with, many educational institution are not based on profits, their motivations are different from the commercial firms.
There may be some egregious practices that should be addressed, but I would be sceptical about treating education in a
way that had any parallels with financial services” (The World According to Larry 2002, pp38).
Historically trade agreements involved reducing tariffs, eliminating trade barriers like quotas on imports on goods
and services. Trade related issues are therefore related to what happens at the boundaries of nations. By opening them to
multilateral negotiations, the rich countries are denying of the developing countries to use specific levers such as capital
restrictions, favour domestic industry, encourage industrialization, and protect its labour force and so on. Presently, the
services sectors are growing at the fastest rates in these countries. The service sectors account for two thirds of economy
and jobs in the European Union (EU), almost a quarter of the EU’s total exports and a half of all foreign investment
flowing from the Union to other parts of the world. In the US, more than a third of economic growth over the past five
years has been because of service exports. I mean to say that the service sectors of the developed countries have grown
quite important over the decades. As a result, the TNCs started lobbying for new trading rules that will expand their share
of the global market in services as governments everywhere spend a considerable amount of their budget on social services
(WTO, 2003).
In many developing countries, much of the services in areas like health and education were provided by
non-governmental organisations like charities, religious societies and community oriented associations. This will change
when with the new dispensation and the corporate sector is poised to play a prominent role especially in countries where
there are affluent elites willing to pay. The move to open up the social sectors to allow for privatisation and competition
from the private sector will mean private corporations taking over the social services of countries for profit, undermining
their equitable distribution. If WTO negotiations succeed then education will irreversible changes in the financing and
delivery of these services. Governments will have to open up these sectors to foreign service providers.
The Indian Government has shown itself to be amenable to commit many areas in the service sector for
negotiations under GATS. The argument put forward is that this will help the fast growing service sector in the country.
Even areas like health are being seen as lucrative areas that could be opened up to take advantage of the low cost of
education in India have as compared to that in developed countries (Government of India, 2008).
Article I.3 defines “services” to include “any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of
government authority;” and “a service supplied in the exercise of government authority” means “any service which is
supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.” That is, only when the
services are entirely provided by the government, they do not fall within the GATS rule. For a service to be out of the
purview of the GATS rule it has to be entirely free. However, when the services have been provided by the government
either partially or some prices are charged (as happens in education in India where some fees is charged) or provided by
the private providers shall fall under the GATS rule. The idea behind this is the creation of an open, global marketplace,
where education can be traded to the highest bidder. GATS cover the educational services of all countries whose
educational systems are not exclusively provided by the public sector, or those educational systems that have commercial
purposes.
22 Kalim Siddiqui
Information Technology and the Importance of English Language
The libraries with electronic resources repositories of books, reports, Ph.D. thesis are also involved in providing
access to databases, websites and other IT based products. Universities are using IT delivered degree programme to
students in the developing countries. Thanks to the rapid use of IT distance learning is growing very fast both in the
developing and developed countries. The IT and website databases are dominated by the major universities based in the
developed countries. Moreover, the Internet functions materials are carried in English (Crystal, 2003). We also find TNCs
have become key players both in terms of curriculum and funding. Tightening copyrights and ownership restrictions
through WTO regulations will further consolidate ownership and limit access (Correa 2000).
It seems that contemporary globalisation is associated with various aspects such as economic, political and
cultural (Ntshoe, 2003; Sklair, 2001; Siddiqui, 2009; Vullimay, 2004). The economic changes associated with the
globalisation are reflected in the dominance of TNCs in the global economy. It is estimated that more than half of the
world’s total value creation are done by these big corporations (Beck 2000). These corporations impose their own global
network of integrated investment and production across various countries, driven not by local, domestic or national
interests but their prime goal is to cut down and boost profits. They are actively seeking location in low-tax countries.
In recent years great innovations in satellite communications and computerised information networks mean that capital
could be moved around the world instantaneously. Access to knowledge and information enable those participating in such
networks to wield greater power. It is argued that the neo-liberal policies have been aggressively advocated. Moreover,
with the expansion of on-line learning which could benefit rural students if proper facilities are provided but will also
require substantial public investment and collaboration partners.
With the globalisation English language is increasingly used for communicating knowledge worldwide for
instruction even in those countries, where English is not the medium of instructions in higher education. Most of the highly
prestigious international journals are published in English (Huang, 2007). Universities in many both poor and rich
countries emphasise that their researchers should publish in international journals that means again in English language.
Moreover, English serves as the language of internet and global communication. We also find large number of
international students register to study abroad in English speaking countries. English language is becoming premier
language of global business and professional in science, research and academic publication. The major European languages
such as German, French and Russian in recent years have declined. An increasing number of top academic institutions
strongly favour to publish in English journals. “It is English that stands as the very centre of global knowledge system.
It has become lingua franca par excellence and continues to entrench that dominance in a self-reinforcing process”
(Held et al, 1999: 346). The increased role of English is very much driven by the weight of the Anglo and North American
dominance within the world economy, film-music industries, and internet (Eaton, 2003). Most of the top research academic
journals in applied science and business is dominated by English publishers (OECD, 2005a).
At present, the United Sates has got 17 of the world’s top ranking research universities in terms of research
performance (Marginson and Wende, 2007:22; Altbach, 2009). There is a large number of foreign academics are migrating
to the United States, particularly in recent years it has drawn huge migration of skilled labour force from South and East
Asian region. American universities have been recruiting a large number of foreign researchers. Between 1977 and 1997
the foreign share of American PhDs rose from 13.5 % to 28.3 %. In Mathematics and Computer Sciences it rose from
20.2 % to nearly 44 %, in Engineering from 32.1 to 45.8 % during the same period (Marginson and Wende, 2007:23).
In 2003 UK had recruited only 23,871 foreign doctoral students and Australia 8,855. The United States dominates
especially in doctoral markets, which creates many benefits for the country. According to US data more than half foreign
doctoral students stayed after completion of their studies (Avveduto, 2001; De Wit, 2002).
Asian nations’ economies share in global GDP has increased in recent years. For example, China’s 1.3 inhabitants
will overtake US PPP GDP by 2025 9. India has 1.2 billion people and its economy is said to be growing around 8 % per
annum. In both these countries higher education is expanding rapidly. Between 1990-91 and 2002-03 the gross enrolment
ratio rose from 3 to 13 % in China and 6 to 11 % in India (World Bank, 2006). Higher education in China is largely funded
by government and we have witnessed a dramatic change in both terms of quantity and quality. From 1998 to 2004, the
total number of undergraduate enrolments in China multiplied by four times and the number of students enrolled for higher
education was more than 20 million in 2004 (Huang, 2007). A further 10 % increase was planned by the government in
next two years. China now accounts for half the R&D expenditure of the non-OECD countries in 2006. The number of
doctoral degrees awarded by Chinese universities rose from 19 in 1983 to 18,625 in 2003. In 2005 its universities recruited
54,000 signalling, thus reducing the dependence of foreign universities10. In tertiary education India has three global
advantages: Communicative competence via ICT systems and the widespread use of English, strong local IT higher
academic institutions with 774,072 students enrolled in 2003 (Natarajan, 2005). Indian research institutes who are
autonomous and have been know for innovative approach towards research and at least 40 % of Indian Institutes of
Technology (IIT) graduates seek employment overseas in Europe and North America 11 (Mitra, 2007; Paul, 2009).
Higher Education in India and China
India launched globalisation of higher education policy with a hope that it would attract large investment to this
sector and can provide affective aid to this under funded sector. However, despite a lot of expectations so far liberalisation
policies in higher education simply attracted only in certain technical and professional areas, where it is seen as making
quick returns. It has hardly improved overall higher education quality and access to education in India (Paul, 2009).
We find that rapid changes are taking place in India and the much larger scale and adoption of new delivery system thanks
to the increased use of IT and video conferencing. The use of new technologies allows the Indian students to enrol in
courses in foreign universities while physically being in India i.e. “on line”. Finally, in recent years the strong support by
the WTO negotiations to include General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS) has further put pressure to allow
greater co-operation with foreign academic institutions. The process of liberalisation in economy and increased reliance on
foreign capital to invest in big way in opening new higher academic institutions or joint ventures to offer courses.
There is a increasing demand for higher education and skills in India due to rapidly growing service sector and
overall liberalisation of the economy. The growing population and increasing number of middle classes, increased
urbanisation and income has considerably increased the demand side, while supply failed to match, resulted in huge gap
(Paul, 2009). That explain why a large number of Indian students travelling abroad every year. For instance, a total of 100,
000 Indian students are currently studying abroad at the cost of $ 4 billion per annum (Bushan, 2006). At the same time, as
9) In 2003 the rate of internet use in China was 63 per thousand people which is average for lower middle income countries as classified by the World Bank. The same year China had 8.6
million broadband subscribers (World Bank, 2006).
10) Private higher education is also growing in China in recent years and in 2005 enrolled nearly 1.5 million students, about 10 % of the national total. Although private higher education in
China has a long way top go in terms of quality when compared to the public institutions (Liu & Liu 2005, p.6)
11) Nearly two-thirds of the Indian students doing PhD in science technology is the United States in 2006 said that do not plan to return to their country immediately despite the high
economic growth rates and increasing job opportunities in India.
24 Kalim Siddiqui
noted above, a large number of foreign programmes have been offered with partnership with Indian academic institutions.
For instance, in 2005, foreign institutions have offered 131 different courses in partnership with Indian academic
institutions. Some students are also supposed to spend last year of their study in the foreign country. However, capital
investments by foreign institutions are minimal in these joint ventures and many of these courses are not accredited in
providers’ own countries. And also India plans to create 12 more central universities in 2008/09 in addition to its existing
19 ones. This will cost the country about 73 million US dollar. India already has Indian Institute of Technology (IITs) and
Indian Institute of Management (IIMs). Their number too is said to be increased. There will be 30 world-class, 8 new IITs
and 7 new IIMs. At present, none of India’s 348 universities is in the top 100 universities in the world (Bushan, 2006).
Studies of international student choice-making show that only a small group of higher academic institutions such
as Cambridge, Oxford, Cambridge-Mass., Harvard, Berkeley etc. most commonly known world-wide. Research and
doctoral training are seen very important in certain fields. And this continuously reinforces the importance of networking
in world’s top research oriented universities. Cross-border flows constitute line of communications and effects on the
academic institutions12. Many developing countries have witnessed a rapid growth over the past two decades in higher
education. Today, nearly 132 million students have enrolled in higher education, which was only 13 million in 1960
(Paul, 2009). There is also a sharp rise in the movement of international students across countries. (Rudner, 1997) It is
being forecasted that the demand for higher education by international students will increase from current nearly 2 million
in 2007 to 7.2 million in 2025. Trade in education services is important for the economy and business in some countries.
Global trade in higher education is estimated to be around US $ 30 billion per annum (OECD, 2004a). The major exporters
of the higher education are countries are like: US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. China, India, Singapore, and
Malaysia are emerging fast as exporter of these services. The tuition fees in West European and North American
universities are quite high, therefore only those who can afford are able to enrol abroad. According to OECD (2004b)
liberalisation of higher education may reduce number of students going abroad (OECD, 2004a).
The landscape of higher education is changing, with increased student mobility, curriculum implications of
internationalisation and the changing nature of knowledge production. Internationalisation may serve to either consolidate
the national character of universities competing for the overseas students or promote denationalisation tendencies through
mechanism such as curricula and cultural exchange 13. It may also be possible that this may lead towards greater Western
cultural hegemony aided by new technologies and big business interests which in need to low cost skilled force to achieve
global competitiveness and increased profitability. While others argue that worsening the gap between poor and rich
countries in economic and social inequalities alongside may provide new opportunities for democratic involvement in
international or super national forms of organisation. For instance Scott (1998) argues ‘dialectical relationship between
internationalisation and globalisation’. (Scott, 1998: 126) According to him internationalisation reflects a world order
dominated by nation-states and a rich and poor country divide. Globalisation, he suggests ‘implies a radical reordering’ of
the world order based on new regional blocs, new realities and the emergence of a knowledge society trading in service.
He argues that modern universities are in essence nation-based institutions serving national projects of human capital
formation, promotion of equality of opportunity and the creation of national elites (Scott 1998).
12) For example, the global flows of people in higher education include students involved in short-term exchange; first degree and master students accessing foreign degree or doctoral
students and other forms of collaboration and exchange with other universities.
13) The term is often used interchangeably with “transnational education, “offshore education” and “borderless education”.
Indian government has amended law to permit 100 % foreign investment in the higher education sector.
Among the developing countries I India has the largest number of higher educational institutions. The country has
altogether 18,000 colleges and universities, more than those in China and the United States. The gross enrolment is only
10 %. However, in the developed countries the gross enrolment exceeds 50 %. The other developing countries such as
China, Mexico, and Brazil have much higher gross enrolment ration than India. Even Indonesia, which has much lower
rates of economic growth compared to India, has higher gross enrolment ratio of 16 %. Thus, there is a big gap in terms of
access to higher education in India. The government intend to increase it to 15 % during the next 5 five years, which will
imply student intake will increase to seven millions during this period. This would demands the country will need large
amount of funds to be invested in this sector in order to meet the planned demand.
The Shanghai world rankings of the top 500 academic institutions and universities listed at the bottom only three
Indian Institutes of Technologies (IITs) and one Indian Institute of Management (IIM) in 2007. The Times global rankings
of the top 100 also just mention these IITs institutions.
In terms of research output, India has moved down from 8 th place in 1985 to the 14th place in 2006 (Paul, 2009).
However, the spending in this sector as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) is 0.37 % compared to 0.50 % in
China and 1.40 % in the United States (Paul, 2009). Government has neglected higher education sector until recently.
However, now government has declared to open new universities and provide more funds for infrastructure to meet
growing. The establishment of thirty universities in Indian in recent future will provide to opportunity to organise and
upgrade their performance and access to rising number of students.
Since adoption of liberalism in 1991 in India the government has been cutting down spending on higher education
through extensive privatization and deregulation policies. Many states in India have introduced legislation to welcome
private institutions (Bushan, 2006). Some foreign universities have started to franchise their courses in India by allowing
students to be enrolled in India and carryout some part of studies in India and completing the course in the institutions
abroad.
Chinese students studying overseas are currently 350,000 (Huang, 2007) and China and India together accounts
for largest proportion of foreign students in the United States. In 1990, China has hardly 7,600 students abroad. China has
not approved the establishment of foreign universities, but encouraged partnership to enhance quality. In 2004 China has
signed 750 joint programmes with foreign universities. The Chinese government are planning to open of 38 world top
ranking universities to upgrade its quality and research availabilities (Huang, 2007).
The leading universities are setting up campuses and offering their courses abroad. For instance, the University of
Nottingham has opened an overseas campus at Ningbo, near Shanghai in 2006. The campus is now home 4,000
undergraduate and postgraduate students. Similarly University of Liverpool has set up campus in Suzhou in partnership
with Xi’an Jiaotong University and offering courses in computing, electronics and IT courses for undergraduate and
postgraduate students. (BERR, February 2009: 63)
26 Kalim Siddiqui
Source: MHRD Annual Report 2007-08, China Statistical Yearbook 2007

Figure 3: Chinese and Indian Enrolment in Higher Education
Source: China and India: Opportunities & Challenges for UK Businesses, Department for Business Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform, BERR Economic Papers No. 5, pp 54, February 2009: London.
Figure 3 indicates that during the last decade China and India have experienced rapid expansion in higher
education. In India for example, more than 12 million students enrolled for higher education in 2006/0714. Nearly one-fifth
of the students in both China and India study courses related to economics, business or management (see Figure 4).
In India Social Science and Humanities are very popular, which enrolled 45 % of the total, while natural science courses
enrolled at 20 % of the total number of students enrolments. While among Chinese students’ Engineering and Technical
courses witnessed over 36 % of the total enrolments during the same year (BERR, 2009).
Source: Statistical Abstract India (2007), China Statistics Yearbook (2007)

Figure 4: Chinese and Indian Higher Education by Subject
14) Indian Ministry of Human Resources and Development (2008) Annual Report 2007/08
.
Quality wise apart from few IITs most Indian universities are not seen as world class universities. And also in
China and India much small number of their graduates go on to obtain Masters or PhD. Qualifications. This will show us
of how effective they have been promoting and inspiring their graduates into highly skilled professionals. For example,
about 3.8 million students graduated from Chinese higher educational institutions in 2006, only 6 % i.e.219, 655 took
Master qualification. While in India the figure was higher. Out of the 2.6 million students who graduated from universities
and educational institutions in India, only nearly one-fifth i.e. 540, 685 completed successfully Master level
qualifications15. For figures on comparison of enrolment rates in higher education for China, India and other developed
countries from 1992 to 2006 see in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Comparison of Enrolment Rates in Tertiary Education
Also see World Bank Ed/Stats Database.
The private Universities Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha (upper House) in India in August 1995. The Bill
points out that the private universities will “self-financing universities not requiring any financial support from the
government” (http://www.education.nie.in/pvt_uni_bill.asp; also Ziderman and Albrecht, 1995). These private universities
will provide courses of studies in “emerging areas of science and technology”.
The government took the process of privatization of higher education quite seriously and in 2000 appointed
committee “special subject group on policy frame work fro private investment in education, health and rural; development”
to advise on this issue. The committee consisted on two top industrialists such as Mr. M. Ambani and Mr. K. Birla.
This report came out with suggestions like ‘education as very profitable market’. The report argued higher education is key
to business success on which the employers must have full control and meeting their needs. The report explicitly argues
that “education must shape adoptable, competitive workers who can readily acquire new skills and innovative” 16.
15) Indian University Grant Commission (UGC) Annual Report 2005-06, Selected Education Statistics, 2004-05, Government of India Publication, New Delhi. Chinese students taking PhD
awards were 36,247 (1%) in 2006, compared to 17,898 (0.7 %) in India in 2004-05
16) The issue to allow the foreign universities to operate in India was debated in August 21 20006 in upper house of Indian parliament. Then government fully supported the entry into
higher education especially in research and development. (source: The Hindu, August 22, 2006)
28 Kalim Siddiqui
Higher education in India is in crisis and even after 65 years of independence higher education is not accessible to
poorest section the society. Only 7 % of the population in age group of 17-23 years is enrolled in higher educational
institutions in 2004-05. Various studies have pointed out that poor countries can not become economically developed, if
the enrolment ratio in higher education is less than 20 %, while in India currently it is less than 10 % of those who enter the
school even accessing higher education.
Over 100,000 Indian students are studying abroad and spending nearly US$ 4 bn. China is the largest country of
origin for international students, with more than 350,000 students studying overseas, representing 14 % of the total
worldwide international student population. The destinations of most international students are universities located in rich
countries with United States at the most favoured destination, host for more than a quarter of the world international
students, United Kingdom and France are other largest competitors.
CONCLUSIONS
In short, with the adoption of globalisation, which is based the policies of neoliberalism and the free-market, the
higher education in the developing countries has changed considerably. The support for supremacy of ‘free-market’ forces
has had a significant influence in this field. The problem is that so much reliance on market and private initiative may
dampen the growth of independent academic institutions in the developing countries. The globalisation is influencing the
quality of education in the developing countries, in recent years there is a proliferation of substandard overseas institutions
which charge high fees, but provide poor education. In India, for example, there is no law for consumer protection or
regulation in higher education. It seems that the relevance to the society the content and the scope is determined by the
requirements of the Western business interests, not the interests of the developing societies (Bok, 2003; Hayes
and Wynyard, 2002).
I find that the recent commoditisation of education is the direct result of the hegemony of the international
financial capital, of the fact that the “educated” now sell their labour power in a market dominated by international capital
which sets the “norm”. Education is seen as a means of making money. Commoditisation of education may also undermine
creativity and originality. Education is presented as a package bought and sold in the market, those people who could
afford to pay could buy it in order to enhance their money-making capacity.
Developing countries have witnessed the opening of foreign campuses or partnership with local institutions, such
as Singapore has attracted 16 foreign universities to offer courses in the country. The UK universities, for instance, the
University of Nottingham has opened an overseas campus at Ningbo, near Shanghai in 2006. The campus is now home
4,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students. Similarly University of Liverpool has set up campus in Suzhou in
partnership with Xi’an Jiaotong University and offering courses in computing, electronics and IT courses for
undergraduate and postgraduate students. (BERR, 2009: 63) The number of Chinese students studying overseas has gone
up considerably in recent years as I have discussed earlier and China and India together accounts for largest proportion of
foreign students in the United States. Moreover, the Chinese government are planning to fund and opening of 38 world top
ranking universities to upgrade its quality and research availabilities.
In a market-model university, the heads of universities assume the role of travelling salesmen to promote their
programmes. The thinking and attitudes of students, now called consumers, are manufactured and an education system is
created that produces standardised people. No longer will truth be sought (Freire, 1993) except whatever suits the corporate
interests. Therefore, the foreign direct investment in higher education in the developing countries cannot be accepted and it
should be opposed. They should not allow market forces to control and shape their higher education. Instead the
developing countries should shape their higher education according to local and national requirements and as successfully
done earlier by the East Asian countries.
The Government must take care of public interests and act to protect education from the predatory elements that
preach the ideology of the marketplace as the solution to every issue. The service sectors of the developed countries have
grown quite important over the decades. As a result, the TNCs are lobbying for new trading rules that will expand their
share of the global market in services. This is what the GATS under the WTO is targeting today. Extending the free trade
to higher education would open developing countries markets to the TNCs. Hence, the developing countries with fewer
resources in educational products to export would be further fall into the control of TNCs.
REFERENCES
 Altbach, P.G. 2004. “Globalisation and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World”, Tertiary
Education and Management, Vol. 10, pp3-25
 Altbach, P.G. 2009. “Global Revolution”, Times Higher Education, 26th November.
 Apple, M. 1995. Education and Power, London: Routledge
 Avveduto, S. 2001. “International Mobility of PhDs”, Innovative People: Mobility and Skilled Personal in
National Innovation Systems, pp 243-260, Paris: OECD
 Bargh, C., Scott, P. and Smith, D. 1996. Governing Universities: Changing the Culture, The Society for Research
into Higher Education: London.
 Baty, Phil. 2009. The Sleeping Giant is Rising to Global Order”, The Times Higher Education, 8th October,
London.
 BERR. 2009. China and India: Opportunities and Challenges for UK Business, Departments for Business
Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, February, BERR Economics Paper No. 5. Accessed on 12 th March
http://www.berr.gov.uk/publications/reports/index.html
 Beck, U. 2000. What is Globalisation? Cambridge, Polity Press.
 Bloom, D. 2005. “Raising the Pressure: Globalisation and Need for Higher Education Reform” in G. Jones, p.
McCarney, and M. Skolnik (Eds.) Creating Knowledge: Strengthening Nations: The Changing Role of Higher
Education, pp 21-41, Toronto: Toronto Press
 Bok, D. 2003. Universities in the Market Place: The Commercialisation of Higher Education, Princeton
University Press.
 Bridges, D. and Jonathan, R. 2003. “Education and the Market” in Nigel Blake et al (eds) Philosophy of
Education, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
 Bushan, S. 2006. Foreign Education Providers in India: Mapping the Extent of Regulation, in the Observatory on
Borderless Higher Education, Accessed on April 2, 2006 at www.obhe.ac.uk
30 Kalim Siddiqui
 Chanda, R. 2002. Globalisation of Services: India’s Opportunities and Constraints, Oxford University Press:
New Delhi
 Correa, C.M. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights: the WTO and Developing Countries, London: Zed Books.
 Crystal, D. 2003. English as Global Language, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 De Wit, H. 2002. Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe, Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
 Freire, Paulo. 1993 Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum.
 Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
 Girdner, Eddie and Siddiqui, Kalim. 2008. “Neoliberal Globalization, Poverty Creation and Environmental
Degradation in Developing Countries”, International Journal of Environment and Development, Vol. 5, No.1 June
PP1-27
 Goodson, I.F. 1990. “Nations at Risk and National Curriculum: Ideology and Identity”, Politics of Education
Association Yearbook, London: Taylor & Francis, 219 (52)
 Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources and Development. 2008. Annual Report.
 Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources and Development. 2007. ‘Selected Education Statistics’
http://www.education.nie.in/pvt_uni_bill.asp Accessed on 10th July 2007
 Habermas, J. 1976. Legitimation Crisis, London: Heinemann
 Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H., Brown, P. and Wells, A.S. (Eds.). 1997. Education, Culture, Economy and Society,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
 Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press: London
 Hayes, D. and Wynyard, R. (Eds.). 2002. The McDonaldization of Higher Education, New York: Praeger.
 Hoogvelt, A. 2001. Globalisation and the Post-colonial World, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave
 Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. 1999. Global Transformation: Politics, Economics and
Culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
 Hogan, D. 1999. “The Social Economy of Parent Choice and the Contract State”, in James Marshall and Michael
Peters (ed) Education Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
 Huang, F. 2007. ‘Internationalisation of Higher Education in Era of Globalisation: What are its implications fro
China and Japan’, in Higher Education Management Policy, Paris: OECD.
 Ischinger, B. 2006. “Higher Education for Changing World”, OECD Observer, June, Paris: OECD
 Jacobs, B. and Ploeg van der, R. 2006. “Guide to Reforms of Higher Education: A European Perspective”,
Economic Policy, Vol. 21, Issue 47, pp. 535-592
 Lambert, R. and Butler, N. 2006. The Future of European Universities: Renaissance or Decay? London: Centre
for European Reform
 Liu, N. and Cheng, Y. 2005. “The Academy Ranking of World Universities”, Higher Education in Europe,
Vol. 30 (2) pp. 127-136.
 Liu, N. and Liu, L. 2005. “University Rankings in China”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 30 (2) pp. 217-227.
 Marginson, S. and Wende, Marijk van der. 2007. Globalisation and Higher Education, EDU/WKP (2007)3,
OECD Directorate for Education, pp 1-83, Paris: OECD Publishing
 Marginson, S. 1997. Market in Education, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
 Mitra, Amit. 2007. The United States and India: Partners in Education, FICCI seminar, 29th March, New Delhi.
(http://www.ficci.com/media-room/speeches-presentations/2007/march/29-dmitra.html
 Morey, A.I. 2004. “Globalisation and the Emergence of the for-profit Higher Education”, Higher Education, 48,
pp.131-50
 Natarajan, R. 2005. “The Role of Technical Education in Enabling the Creation of a Knowledge Economy and
Society: The Indian Experience”, in G. Jones, p. McCarney and M. Skolnik (eds.) Creating Knowledge:
Strengthening Nations: The Changing Role of Higher Education, pp 155-166, Toronto: Toronto Press.
 Neave, G.Y. 2002. “Editorial: Academic Freedom in an Age of Globalisation”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 15,
pp. 331-335.
 Ntshoe, I.M. 2003. “The Political Economy of Access and Equitable Allocation of Resources to Higher
Education”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 23, pp. 381-398
 OECD. 2004a. Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges, Paris: OECD
 OECD. 2004b. Quality and Recognition in Higher Education: The Cross-border Challenges, Paris: OECD
 OECD. 2005a. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD
 OECD. 2005b. Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education, Paris: OECD
 Orr, L. 1997. Globalisation and Universities: Towards the Market University, Social Dynamics, Vol. 23 (1),
pp. 42-67
 Paul, S. 2009. “Internationalisation of Higher Education: Strategic Implications”, Economic and Political Weekly,
February 28th, XLIV, No.9, pp.36-4,1, Mumbai.
 Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.
 Scott, P. (Edi.). 1998. The Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press
 Siddiqui, Kalim. 2012. “Malaysia’s Socio-Economic Transformation in Historical Perspective”, IJBGM, Vol.1,
Issue 2, November, pp. 21-50.
32 Kalim Siddiqui
 Siddiqui, Kalim. 2011. “Experiences of Capitalism in India and Pakistan’, Research in Applied Economics, June,
Vol.3, No.1, pp.1-48
 Siddiqui, Kalim. 2009. “The Political Economy of Growth in China and India”, Journal of Asian Public Policy
(JAPP), March Vol.1, No.2, pp.17-35
 Siddiqui, Kalim. 2008. “Globalisation and Developing Countries: Opportunities or Marginalisation?” pp.46-71, in
Verma, S. B. et al (eds.) Globalisation at the Cross Roads, New Delhi: Sarup & Sons Publishers.
 Siddiqui, Kalim. 1998. “The Export of Agricultural Commodities, Poverty and Ecological Crisis: A Case Study of
Central American Countries”, Economic and Political Weekly, 26th September, No. 39, vol. xxxiii,
(pp A128-A137), Mumbai.
 Sklair, L. 2001. Transnational Capitalist Class, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
 Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics and Policies Entrepreneurial University,
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
 Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalisation and Its Discontents, New York: Norton.
 Tilak, J.B.G. 2013. “Higher Education in BRIC Member Countries: Comparative Patterns and Policies, Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol.XLViii, No.14, 6th April
 The World According to Larry. 2002. in Foreign Policy, July-August, pp. 30-39
 Teichler, U. 2004. “The Changing Debate on Internationalization of Higher Education”, Higher Education,
Vol. 48, pp.5-26.
 World Bank. 2006. World Development Indicators, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
 World Bank. 2008a. Country Summary of Higher Education – India, World Bank: Washington D.C.
 World Bank. 2008b. ‘Skill Development in India: The Vocational Education and Training System’, South Asia
Human Development Sector, Report No. 22, Washington D.C.
 World Trade Organisation Report. 2003. Geneva: World Trade Organisation.
 Ziderman, A. and Albrecht, D. 1995. Financing Universities in Developing Countries, London: The Palmer Press.

Humanites - IJHSS - Higher Education in UK Kalim Siddiqui

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Humanites - IJHSS - Higher Education in UK Kalim Siddiqui

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of Humanities

and Social Sciences (IJHSS)

HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE ERA OF GLOBALISATION

The Meaning of Globalisation

Globalisation and Higher Education

Table 1: Total and Gross Enrolment (2009)

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Trading Economics.com

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statisticus, Braill School

Table 2: Expenditurein Education and Rasearch and Development (R&D)

Percentage of Expenditure in Education as % of GDP

However, critics of neo-liberal globalisation have termed it as “McDonaldization” or “Neo-Fordism”

Source: also see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12671198? Accessed on 22/03/2011

Internationalisation of higher education means increasing aspects of inter-university co-operation. It is considered

General Agreement on Trade in Services: Targeting the Services Sector

Information Technology and the Importance of English Language

Higher Education in India and China

Source: MHRD Annual Report 2007-08, China Statistical Yearbook 2007

Source: Statistical Abstract India (2007), China Statistics Yearbook (2007)

Figure 5: Comparison of Enrolment Rates in Tertiary Education

Also see World Bank Ed/Stats Database.

 Apple, M. 1995. Education and Power, London: Routledge

 Beck, U. 2000. What is Globalisation? Cambridge, Polity Press.

 Freire, Paulo. 1993 Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum.

 Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 Habermas, J. 1976. Legitimation Crisis, London: Heinemann

 Marginson, S. 1997. Market in Education, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

 OECD. 2005a. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD

 Sklair, L. 2001. Transnational Capitalist Class, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

 Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalisation and Its Discontents, New York: Norton.

 World Trade Organisation Report. 2003. Geneva: World Trade Organisation.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen